SAVITHRI AND ORS. versus KARTHYAYANI AMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-('· 
A 
SA VITHRI AND ORS. 
v. 
KARTHYA Y ANI AMMA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
I-
'""( 
Succession Act, 1925-s. 63 - Will-Execution of-Allegation of 
c 
suspicious circumstances - Execution of Will by testator in favour of 
his sister and her children with whom he had been living and who had 
been looking after him and his medical expenses during major portion 
of his life-Challenge to, by testator's son on the ground of suspicious 
circumstances-Held: Will was product of .free will-Deprivation of due 
D 
share by natural heirs would not amount to suspicious circumstance-
· Moreso, testator left something for his son-Thus, execution of Will 
was genuine. 
>-.... 
,• 
' 
ss. 63 and 61-Will-Validityof-Onus of proof, when there exist 
suspicious circumstances-Held: Lies on the propounder to explain 
E them to the satisfaction of the court before it can be accepted as 
genuine-Evidence Act, 1872-s. 68. 
KN-brother and KK-sister purchased properties. KK had two 
children-SN (son) and NN (daughter). Appellants are wife, son and 
T" .. - daughters of MN, son of SN. Respondent no.1and2 are children and 
respondent no 3 and 8 are grandchildren ofNN. SN and his wife had 
1'-
strained relations and SN was living with his sister and her children who 
were looking after him and bearing his medical expenses. Partition took 
place between the parties. SN executed a Will dated 07.08.1971 in 
f 
G respect of the properties allotted to him. Value of properties allotted in 
favour of SN was Rs.1000/-which would be in possession of and enjoyed 
by NA and her children and MN was to be paid Rs. 500/-. It was 
>-~ 
appellant's case that the Will was surrounded by suspicious 
circumstances as the Registrar was brought to the house of the 
H 
404 
SA VITHRI v. KARTHY A Y ANI AMMA 
405 
r 
propounder which proved that the testator was not in good health and 
A 
mental condition at the time of execution of the Will; that attesting 
witness to the Will stated that he had not seen the execution of the Will; 
I 
that other witnesses to the execution of the Will were beneficiaries under 
the Will; that even when execution and registration of the Will had taken 
place at the house, no one from the locality had attested the Will as a B 
witness. MN fded suit for partition and for cancellation of Will which 
-f 
was allowed. Respondent filed appeal challenging the order. High Court 
y 
allowed the same. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. The legal requirement in terms of section 63 of the Indian 
Succession Act, 1925 and section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is that 
a Will like any other document is to be proved in terms of the pro\-isions 
of the Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder. Th~ 
testamentary capacity of the testator must also be established. 
D 
j_ 
Execution of the Will by the testator has to be proved. At least one 
attesting witness is required to be examined for the purpose of proving · 
the execution of the Will. It is required to be shown that the Will has 
been signed by the testator with his free will and that at the relevant 
time he was in sound disposing state of mind and understood the nature E 
and effect of the disposition. It is also required to be established that 
he has signed the Will in the presence of two witnesses who attested 
his signature in his presence or in the presence of each other. Only when 
there exist suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the applicant 
to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before it can be accepted 
F 
_y 
as genuine. [Para 14] [415-A, B, C, D] 
2.1. The submission that if both KN and SN were to bequeath their 
entire right, title and interest in the properties in favour of the 
respondents by way of family arrangement or otherwise, no deed of G 
partition was required to be executed, cannot be accepted as thereby 
~ 
they would have lost their interest in the property during their life time. 
They evidently intended to have life interest in the property, 
bequeathing the same in favour of the respondents. The parties are 
governed by Marumakkattayam School of Hindu Law. The sisters in H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A the family have a role to play. The fact that the testator was totally 
dependent on his nephew and nieces is beyond any dispute. He lost his 
employment in the year 1959. Apart from the properties which were 
subject-matter of the Will, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.